| What does this mean for ITFC on 10:11 - Nov 22 with 1895 views | _clive_baker_ |
Having not seen the details I don't know, but Man City voting against it suggests its potentially favourable to others. |  | |  |
| What does this mean for ITFC on 10:19 - Nov 22 with 1827 views | BseaBlue |
I'd have thought that it wouldn't have been favourable seeing as though we have cash rich owners and not a huge amount of revenue in comparison to others (Meaning we have less to spend due to the FFP rules)
However, we were not one of the clubs believed to have voted against it so the cons must have outweighed the pros! |  | | |
| What does this mean for ITFC on 10:21 - Nov 22 with 1809 views | Mookamoo |
Suppose it means now our Ed is an owner and a sponsor, we have to check his deal is what the market would expect to pay and he hasn't just chucked us tens of millions in the hope of bypassing the rules.
If Extreme Noise Terror wanted to take over, what they be expected to pay. |  | | |
| What does this mean for ITFC on 12:35 - Nov 22 with 1366 views | WestStanderLaLaLa |
No change to us on the sponsorship front. Think we’ve benefited from 0% shareholder loans. Looks like those in place can continue but new ones will end according to this
https://www.espn.co.uk/football/story/_/id/42539734/premier-league-confirms-apt-
“Any shareholder loans entered after the rule comes into effect will now have to be submitted as an APT, which will be subject to an FMV assessment.
If the Premier League Board finds the loan to not be at FMV, the club must either terminate or vary the loan to reflect FMV and pay any shortfall in interest” |  |
| |
| What does this mean for ITFC on 14:36 - Nov 22 with 1068 views | gainsboroughblue |
We weren't one of the four teams who voted against so the outcome sounds fine to me.
Edit. Should say clubs rather than teams I suppose. [Post edited 22 Nov 2024 14:36]
|  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
